The unstoppable spread of Internet technology has now opened a new channel for legal communication: subpoenas by e-mail. A U.S. District Court Judge allowed an attorney to send subpoenas by e-mail in a recent case. The case involves the makers of Cyber Patrol software, who are fighting to stop a hack that allows users to circumvent the software from spreading all over the 'Net.

In brief, two guys wrote a program that finds and displays the password that enables parents to block certain websites using Microsystems Inc.'s Cyber Patrol software package. Microsystems announced that it would try to stop the guys from distributing the cphack code, but as is the way of the 'Net, the code was spread like wildfire by 'Netizens concerned with freedom of the Internet. Microsystems's lawyer convinced the judge to issue a temporary restraining order against further distribution; the judge also allowed the lawyer to send subpoenas asking for log files showing who had downloaded the files.

SAM'S OPINION
The article brings up the obvious flaw in this decision: it's way too easy to fake e-mails and it's way too hard to prove receipt of e-mails by intended recipients. Allowing a legal document to be served in this way is ludicrous. The Microsystems lawyer says he will also send hard copies of the subpoena, but this is a very dangerous precedent to set. One has to wonder how technologically clueless this judge is–and if he's that silly, what is he doing sitting on this case?

We all know from watching movies that serving subpoenas is a potentially tough and time-consuming process. So why not allow subpoenas to be sent via e-mail, a much quicker and cheaper and easier method? Again, the screamingly obvious answer is that e-mail isn't secure enough in the slightest. If you require a return receipt on an e-mail and receive notice that the message was received and opened, you still don't know WHO opened it. And how is the receiver supposed to know that the e-mail is authentic? And what happens if the e-mail gets garbled in the transmission? The potential problems are endless. Thank goodness the lawyer is sending hard copies by traditional means as well (did the judge require that? I'll have to find out), but I'm just scared that future decisions may use this ruling as a precedent to allow e-mail notification to be sufficient when e-mail becomes more secure. Ugh.

Lost in the focus of this news item is the whole “Should Internet access be restricted?” question. If you read my older news item on a related issue, you know my feelings on this issue. The Yahoo news item covers this in more detail as well. And you should also notice that the subpoenas are allowing the lawyer to get lists of people who downloaded the software–you're never safe on the 'Net. Gross gross gross.